About your Search

20130201
20130228
STATION
CSPAN 7
CSPAN2 5
MSNBC 5
MSNBCW 5
KNTV (NBC) 2
WRC (NBC) 2
WBAL (NBC) 1
LANGUAGE
English 36
Search Results 0 to 35 of about 36 (some duplicates have been removed)
are more and more effective in powering afghan communities to defend against taliban intimidation and violence. plans are being developed to increase the authorized size of the alp program from 30,000 to 45,000. the next centcom cmander will also play an important role in shaping our enduring partnership with afghanistan after 2014. the partnership that i fully support. ike m. concerned however by the plants to reduce the afghan national security forces by a third starting in 2015. 352,000 to 230,000 by 2017. i believe that any future reductions in the size of the afghan forces should be based on security conditions in afghanistan at that time and this afghan security forces make and providing for their country security, we should reassure them that we will continue to support these efforts by deciding that as we withdraw our forces that the won't get drawdo and afghan forces. progress in afghanistan remains fragile and significant challenges to afghanistan's long-term stability remain. among the greatest threat to its stability are the safe havens for afghan insurgents across the
in powering afghan communities to defend against taliban intimidation and violence. plans are being developed to increase the authorized size of the alp program from 30,000 to 45,000. the next centcom commander will also play an important role in shaping our enduring partnership with afghanistan after 2014. the partnership that i fully support. ike m. concerned however by the plants to reduce the afghan national security forces by a third starting in 2015. 352,000 to 230,000 by 2017. i believe that any future reductions in the size of the afghan forces should be based on security conditions in afghanistan at that time and this afghan security forces make and providing for their country security, we should reassure them that we will continue to support these efforts by deciding that as we withdraw our forces that there won't get drawdown and afghan forces. progress in afghanistan remains fragile and significant challenges to afghanistan's long-term stability remain. among the greatest threat to its stability are the safe havens for afghan insurgents across the pakistan border. the government o
and the taliban are doing, because of their very extreme understanding of sunni islam, they're also targeting the shia. for example in pakistan, where i was commissioner, they killed 100 shia. that's appalling. a complete breakdown of law and order. no government can allow that and yet it happens. iran is a very strong, aggressive, shia power and it has interests in the region. so, again, it's on great game. balance has to be kept. so if you have an understanding in terms of the region, i think it can share. >> host: the country al -- of mali is entering. >> guest: you have being hearing about the tribes. they have been marginalized their lands robbed, million raleigh sources storm, really treated as third rate citizens on their own land by their central government. so their there comes a point when they say, enough is enough, we're going to react, and they react. unfortunately this is not a very civilized or very educated part of the world. these are tribesmen. most of them are illiterate. they only act according to their open tribal codes and the primary code is the law of revenge so they g
, obama administration lawyers argue the government can kill americans believed to be top taliban leaders posing, quote, an imminent threat of attack against the united states. >> we have acknowledged the united states that sometimes we use remotely piloted aircraft to conduct targeted strikes against specific al qaeda terrorists to prevent attacks on the united states and to save american lives. we conduct those strikes because they're necessary to mitigate ongoing actual threats, to stop plots, prevent future attacks and save american lives. the strikes are legal, ethical an wise. >> but as expected, the memo coming under fire from civil rights activists because of how broadly imminent threat is defined. quote, the condition that an operational leader present an imminent threat of violent attack against the united states does not require the united states to have clear evidence that a specific attack on u.s. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future. now, the memo also has new details on legal case behind more drone strikes against al qaeda suspects. such as a strike
qaeda, the taliban, and its associated forces. second, in this conflict, as indeed in any conflict, the united states is lawfully entitled. and finally, whatever the constitution's due process guarantees may require before targeting a u.s. citizen, these requirements are more than satisfied by rigorous judgment that a person needs the administration's narrow targeting. to understand why this position must be correct, consider a domestic hostage situation. in such a situation, even law enforcement will use this command it will do so without judicial preapproval when the threats of the lives of the hostages is serious. nobody takes the position that such actions constitute and killings. it is not profoundly different from this hostage situation. a mounting chorus of critics has insisted that judicial review must be a feature of the framework that authorizes the targeting of american nationals. whatever the merit of these mechanisms, one point is very clear. current law simply does not provide for prospective judicial involvement in targeting decisions. it is therefore hard for having
% of their population now under afghan control and security. we've been able to diminish the taliban's capabilities. violence has gone down. we're also developing an afghan army that is increased its operational skill to provide security. so we're on the right path towards trying to give afghanistan the opportunity to govern and secure itself. >> general dempsey, very quickly, women in combat. implementing that. is there some movement on capitol hill to pass a law to make sure you don't change standards, somehow lower standards. do you think that's good legislation? >> they can legislate if they like. they don't have to do that, because -- >> you're not going to change your stance? >> we're going to make sure we have the right standards for right job to maintain the readiness of the force. my primary responsibility is the readiness of the force. there's also requirement as we open up occupational specialties to report to congress, and they would have the opportunity to ask us what we've done to standards. look, this really is about changing the paradigm from one of exclusiveness to inclusiveness to
artillery at taliban units in eastern afghanistan. >> as we wait, lawmakers are going to be grilling john brennan, the architect of this policy during his confirmation hearings for cia director, and that's coming up tomorrow. do you think that this is going to have a big impact, a lot of questions during that confirmation directly on this? >> brennan was put on the grill before over the so called torture memos. he's a career cia officer. he's a magnificent public servant. he's extremely knowledgeable. i'm sure he will be questioned closely about all this. and that's appropriate. having said that, he's not the architect of anything. this is a responsibility the commander in chief, the secretary of defense and the cia director. so that's who we ought to hold accountable. >> are drone strikes the future? >> well, all the other nations are now building drones. and so again, there's precedence here that we should be concerned about. because this sort of tool will be use against us in the coming decades. having said that, we've got to protect the american people. we have decimated al qaeda glob
about what it's like to live with the taliban? what it's like to live with al-qaeda. tearing down statues of religious icons, terrorizing women, making it unlivable for people who are trying to start a business. why don't we talk about that? instead, you want to blame the united states. i don't understand it. >> well, i've been to afghanistan many times, juan, and i'd be happy to go with you. i feel that after ten-plus years of occupation there, when we leave, the afghan people are going to be struggling themselves over who is in control of their government. we can't come in from the outside and socially engineer other people's countries. what we have to do is protect ourselves here at home. >> juan: amany at protecting ourselves by killing terrorists and doing it strategically, surgically as opposed to launching a full scale war. but you don't seem to agree. >> that's just not true. we're creating more enemies than we're killing. we're violating international law and our own constitution, including americans overseas with absolutely no judicial process. that is shameful. >> juan:
of the president. i support him. we cannot change the equation at this point in time. the taliban have been determined to relentlessly attacked the afghan government. we have to not pull out and make sure we focus on a counterterrorism strategy compared to the surge strategy, which did not accomplish its goal. host: another word that was not mentioned was the use of drones in the confirmation hearing. guest: this is a controversial subject. i fall on the side of supporting our drone program relentlessly sorting our drone program to protect our troops and to prevent the united states from being harmed by terrorists. when al qaeda operatives were taken out by drones >>> in afghanistan and yemen -- by drone strikes in afghanistan and elsewhere, i commended the president for his counterterrorism policy. it has protected the homeland as best as any weapon we could have. it has been an effective way of putting al qaeda on the defense and keeping them on the run. the president deserves congratulations for being relentlessly consistent and persistent in his drone program. does that mean it has been
. >> there was an interesting story. >> in yemen. >> he was -- he agreed to meet with a member of the taliban which was a very brave thing for him to do. al-qaeda. it was a brave thing for him to do. while they were meeting, they were voiprized by a drone. shocking story. a muss let me [delete]cleric on our side who had preached did the dangers of al-qaeda. and warning people not to be affiliated with them. he, himself, is blown away by a drone strike. >> one of the problems of remote control room warfare, you don't know exactly who you are killing. >> jay carney yesterday also made the point that, yes, we have the authorization, as does this -- the white paper, 16 pages, this authorization to conduct drone strikes exists under the blanket authorization for the war on terror that was given george w. bush by the congress right after september 11th. >> uh-huh >> bill: it's the same authorization that was cited by george bush to justify rendition, torture waterboarding, and wiretapping. >> right and also done in great sec res see. people kept asking carney about t
it said local taliban was working with warlords to provide guards and weapons for the use of the contract. it came out that they were failing to adequately investigate the previous employment which resulted in the company's hiring individuals who previously had been fired for sharing sensitive information. security information with the taliban war lords and failure to appropriately some of according to the u.s. intelligence reports may have been involved in anti-american activity. all of that information was out in a classified we several weeks before it to attend comes out of 28 and was out in public of september 28th. guess who the state department gave the contract to for guarding them on the 29th. the eodt and then the were fired for never performing because they couldn't perform accurately. they wanted to litigate. meanwhile guess who is still guarding. we had egis guarding which was another contract of kabul. we still have armored troops then we did a contract with the jet. they finally took over the summer. i urge you all to take a look and you do not have to come secretary, you ca
afghan communities to defend against taliban intimidation and violence. plans are being developed to increase the authorized size of the program from 30,000 down to 45,000. the next commander will also play an important role in shaping our partnership with afghanistan after 2014. a partnership that i fully support. i am concerned however by plans to reduce the afghan national security forces by a third starting in 2015. of retreated 52,000 to two injured 30,000 by 2017. i believe any future reductions in the size of the afghan forces should be based on security conditions in afghanistan at that time and as afghan security forces' progress in providing for their country's security, we should reassure them that we will continue to support these efforts by citing as we withdraw our forces that there won't be a drawdown in afghanistan forces. progress in afghanistan remains fragile, significant challenges to afghanistan's long-term stability remains. among the greatest threat to the stability is the safe havens for the afghan insurgents across the pakistan border which the government
. but the public report came out on september 28. and in that report it said that local taliban was working with war lords to provide guards and weapons for use in the contract. it came out they were failing to adequately investigate the forwards' previous employment which resulted in hiring individuals who had been fired for sharing sensitive information, security information work taliban war lords. failure to appropriately vet guards, some of whom, according to u.s. intelligence reports, may have been involved in anti-american activities. now all of that information was out in the classified way several weeks before september 10, excuse me, september 28, an was out in public september 28.
out secret effort to persuade the taliban to expel bin laden. as we know, bin laden was not expelled. three months later, his wrath was unleashed with an attack on our embassies. did you advise director tenant against this operation? and if so, why? >> i had a conversation with george and that at the time. every single cia manager, george tennant as deputy director of operations at the time, and other individuals at the counter-terrorism center argued against that operation as well because it was not well grounded in intelligence, and its chances of success were minimal. and it was likely that other individuals would be killed. when i was involved in those discussions, i provided the director and others my professional advice about whether i thought that operation should go forward. i also was engaged in discussion with the saudi government at the time. and i encouraged certain action to be taken to put pressure on the taliban as well as bin laden. >> i take it that your answer to my question is that you did advise in favor of the cancellation of that operation. >> based on what i ha
by the taliban because she wanted to go to school and spoke out on girls rights. she was just released from the hospital in the u.k. 15-year-old malala had reconstructive surgeries over the weekend. she is an international symbol for freedom. she is using her survival to push for women's education. she was nominated for the nobel peace prize this year as well as "time"'s person of the year. rick: drones, they're not welcome in seattle. the city's democratic mayor ordering the police department to abandon its use or planned use for them following protests from people there. and privacy advocates. seattle's police department had purchased two drones. they hadn't used them yet, pending approval from the faa well, speaking of drones, and privacy concerns, a law maker in texas wants to ban them from taking pictures of homes and other private property. but there is already a big effort to stop that measure. lance gooden is the state representative behind the bill. he joins us live this morning. good to see you. thank you very much for joining us, representative gooden. thanks for joining us this
and defeated the taliban on our behalf not the mean he of our enemy, but these are radical islamic jihadists who want a cal fate -- caliphate in which the united states is sub jew dated to a religious -- subjugated to a religious ruler and they are willing to use violence if necessary, although the muslim brotherhood now seems to indicate that here in america they have made so much progress in infiltrating and getting positions of power in our government, our state department, in our homeland security department, in our justice department, at the white house directly, and direct lines to the president, they have made so much progress in moving toward that goal of a caliphate here in the united states under shari'a law, not under the constitution, that they are thinking maybe violence is not the way forward in america to achieve their goal of making this a shari'a compliant caliphate. but the muslim brotherhood around the world believes many places violence is the way forward in those areas. but we've got to understand who we are facing and what they want to do. and secretary clinton, unfortu
Search Results 0 to 35 of about 36 (some duplicates have been removed)